GNOME Desktop MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action ('Switch to a workspace') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this changes the active workspace globally, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., rearranging windows), or what happens on invalid input. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool effectively. It's complete enough for basic use but not robust.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by specifying the parameter is an 'index (0-based)', which clarifies the input type and format beyond the schema's generic 'integer'. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Switch to') and resource ('a workspace'), specifying it's done by index (0-based). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workspaces' (which lists) and 'focus_window' (which targets windows), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all workspace-related tools, as there are none other than 'list_workspaces' in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know workspace indices from 'list_workspaces'), exclusions, or compare to other navigation tools like 'focus_window'. The context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.